So the only options are to agree with that particular definition or to agree that more discussion is required (presumably to go on endlessly until the point is reached where one finally agrees with the definition)? Yeah, that's a meaningful poll, all right.

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:45 amPosts: 1473Location: One of the boys from Illinois

You are correct on all three counts.

gbin wrote:

So the only options are to agree with that particular definition or to agree that more discussion is required (presumably to go on endlessly until the point is reached where one finally agrees with the definition)? Yeah, that's a meaningful poll, all right.

I am not sure how you have permissions to post a poll, but these two polls would be much more useful:

The term field herping means:pursuing herps in the field to photograph, observe, or collect data only.pursuing herps in the field to photograph, observe, collect data, or responsibly collect.pursuing herps in the field for any purpose.just shut up and post some pics of herps in the field

In regards to collecting herps, I believe that:No one should ever collect a herpOnly zoos or universities should ever collect herpsherps should only be collected for an exceptional reasonoccasional responsible collecting of herps is fine for personal useoccasional responsible collecting of herps is fine for personal or commercial useit is ok to collect herps for personal or commercial useim not sure how I feel about collecting

The beauty of Andy's definition is 'less is more'... it accurately describes what we do, yet leaves 'motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate' open to personal interpretation, such as Chris said, enjoying them in captivity.The term 'observing and searching' is also general enough to cover all types of field-related activities...data, photos, strict observation, collection... hell, even rd cruising, cause rds generally have to transect the fields or habitat where herps occur.

The morass over collecting vs non-collecting is in fact a different topic, or sub-set of 'field herping' and need not be specifically addressed in a broad definition of 'Field Herping' at large, so consequentially... I concur.

Given the recent regrettable derailments on this contentious issue, I have taken the time to carefully consider my position on collecting and formulate my position... which is the true goal of 'ethical inquiry'... self-examination. This is MY opinion, offered only as material for consideration, to facilitate others in formulating their own opinions.First of all... I rate the welfare of the herp species, whether individually, or as a species at large, as more important than my personal wants or desires.I determine that the 'Utilitarian' perspective is most apt, when considering what's 'best' for a species lacking the capacity for abstract thought required for self-determination.... Thus...That which produces the greatest amount of positive utility, for either an individual of, or for the species at large, is ethical.My example...I collect a small glossy for use in my 'Local Reptile Educational Talks' I use the snake in these talks to teach people that they are not dangerous, but rather, beneficial (as adults) in rodent control, and should be left alone, rather than summarily dispatched, when encountered. After my lecture series conclude for the year, I can either keep the glossy, to be used in following years, gift it out to a good home, or use it as a feeder, for a kingsnake.In any of those circumstances, I feel that the negative utility suffered by the individual is far outweighed by the positive utility garnered for the species at large.Even from an individual standpoint, the chances of any individual yoy making it to adult reproductive age is problematic at best... in captivity, they are (ideally) well-fed and free from predation, and typically live longer that their wild brethren. Even if used as a feeder... the educational value they provided outweighs the 50/50 possibility that they could have survived in the wild.

This assessment paradigm is applicable to every type of collecting, and supports most, except commercial collecting and harvesting (roundups) IF the collector is TRULY doing it for the welfare of the species (or individual) and not using it as a rationalization to serve his/her own desires.

Today I will try to find my 1st ever (on my own) striped Ca King. I will MOST likely only collect data and photo vouchers, unless I happen to find something VERY exceptional (which I almost never do... ) Have a great day, everybody... jim

"The hobby of observing and searching for wild amphibians and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them."

IMHO - The reason I like Andy’s definition is that is non-judgmental, recognizes that herping is a personal thing, shared by folks with multiple backgrounds and interests, and, avoids the most insidious of English word, “should”.

I’m not sure why we’re even having this conversation but I feel we’re assaulted almost daily by folks who are trying to tell us that they know better on how we should live our lives, based on their opinions and value systems.

Assuming you are not breaking any state or federal laws:If you "enjoy and appreciate them" by never touching them and taking pics without a flash, have at it.If you "enjoy and appreciate them" by touching them and for a better pic, enjoy.If you "enjoy and appreciate them" by keeping one as a personal pet or educational specimen, harvest sensibly.If you "enjoy and appreciate them" by clipping a tail tip or taking a toe for scientific voucher, publish your work.If you "enjoy and appreciate them" by commercially harvesting them as a managed resource, this is between you and your state and federal agencies.

I may agree or even despise some of these positions ethically or emotionally, but I respect their privileges to "herp" legally.

Of course, IMHO I do think all the elected leaders of NAFHA should decide this issue and present it to all members in a video using interpretive dance.

“In every walk with Nature one receives far more than he seeks.” - John Muir

"This assessment paradigm is applicable to every type of collecting, and supports most, except commercial collecting and harvesting (roundups) IF the collector is TRULY doing it for the welfare of the species (or individual) and not using it as a rationalization to serve his/her own desires."

Why would you exclude commercial collecting? I understand that in many cases commercial collecting has a higher impact on species and populations but herps are still a renewable resource. We all need to make a living and everything ultimately comes from nature. Using any given chunck of habitat for commercial collecting could quite possibly be better for the species than a great number of other potential uses. This with the caveat that the collecting is actually managed for the long term sustainability of the herps and habitat.

For example the California Kingsnakes of Carlsbad, CA were comercial collected for decades, both legally and illegally. They were abundant right up until the day those fields got turned into Legoland, golfcourses, shopping centers, industrial parks and tract homes. I think it would have been better for them if they had continued to be collected rather then have their habitat converted. It is true that very rarely would a habitat be preserved solely for the purpose of commercial collecting but if it was added onto other public uses like fishing, hunting, hiking, biking, dog walking, etc. it could be a contributing motivator for habitat conservation.

BillMcGighan, the problem I have is with the implied "shoulds" that you mention.

"The hobby of observing and searching for wild amphibians and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them."

It doesn't necessarily have to be a hobby. For example, a hobbyist may find a way to profitably create a business out of wildlife photography. I would still include this as a field herper.

There is no reason to include the word observing. You could just as easily have included any other valid use of herps in its place such as collecting, or photographing, or studying. By including the word observing, you are in a way excluding other valid reasons to field herp.

This is why I stated that I feel a better definition might be:

Searching for wild amphibians and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them.

"The hobby of observing and searching for wild amphibians and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them."

This definition doesn't really work for me and I think this poll is a bit premature and leading. HOWEVER, it seems to work for many. Maybe we could get a little more consensus by tweeking it.

Short of offering a completely different definition, I'd suggest a slight revision as follows:

"The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians, motivated by an interest in conservation or preservation."

1) "Act" instead of "hobby" because "act" is more inclusive.

2) "Searching" instead of "observing and searching" because ALL field herpers search but not all observe. "Observation" of herps is only one outcome of many once the herps are found. We should either list all accepted outcomes (too wordy and divisive) or none.

3) "Interest in conservation or preservation" instead of "desire to enjoy and appreciate them" because it is more inclusive of the real motivations of field herpers. It also excludes types of "enjoyment and appreciation" such as wanton killing or subsistence hunting that are not characteristic of field herpers.

Edit: Looks like JDM was raising some of the same points as I typed up my post. He must be a genius!

"The hobby of observing and searching for wild amphibians and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them."

Short of offering a completely different definition, I'd suggest a slight revision as follows:

"The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians, motivated by an interest in conservation or preservation."

That's a lot more than a slight revision, Daryl. I'm convinced that there are plenty of field herpers out there who don't care much if at all about conservation/preservation, and more than a few who actively dislike those things. Sure, I hope they change their minds someday, but that's made less rather than more likely by attempts to exclude them.

Besides, no one has yet offered a compelling reason why the definition should include mention of motivation, differences of opinion about which are creating an obvious sticking point. Just go with "the act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians" and be done with it, I say.

SSSHHHHH! I didn't want them to know I was completely revamping their definition. Actually, I think it keeps with the intended spirit of the original version (at least the way I assumed it was intended) but reduces some ambiguity and some areas of conflict.

Quote:

I'm convinced that there are plenty of field herpers out there who don't care much if at all about conservation/preservation, and more than a few who actively dislike those things.

Really? Hope I never meet them. I figured "conservation" (as in sustainable use) OR "preservation" (as in protection) would include all of us. Obviously, there are often direct and overwhelming conflicts between "conservationists" and "preservationists" but all herpers I know fall into one group or the other, with many falling somewhere between. Now, maybe what you're meaning is that some follow unethical practices that run counter to both conservation and preservation. That certainly (and unfortunately) is true. However, I bet even those herpers would claim to interested in conservation or preservation. They just don't always live up to it or get blinded by other interests.

Quote:

Besides, no one has yet offered a compelling reason why the definition should include mention of motivation, differences of opinion about which are creating an obvious sticking point. Just go with "the act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians" and be done with it, I say.

I could certainly agree with that! However, some want a motivation test included as a means of segregating out folks like subsistence hunters, round-up hunters, and exploitative commercial collectors. Is this a "compelling reason"? Maybe not, but I don't see any real harm since most of those being excluded don't consider themselves field herpers anyway. The motivation test I suggested was a little more inclusive (IMHO) of the actual field herping community and less ambiguous.

If you were defining "field herping" for Webster, would it not be a simple thing like, "The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians."

However, we are not Webster.Now, here, the poll seems valid in that I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that we're looking for a "connotative" meaning that separates the "spirit" of NAFHA herpers from the commercial and the purely scientific world. As “citizen scientists” we collect the data in a credible fashion for our own records or the real scientific world to use if they choose. This sounds like a hobby to me.This is why I could live with Andy's definition. IMHO, of course.

... some want a motivation test included as a means of segregating out folks like subsistence hunters, round-up hunters, and exploitative commercial collectors. Is this a "compelling reason"? Maybe not, but I don't see any real harm since most of those being excluded don't consider themselves field herpers anyway. The motivation test I suggested was a little more inclusive (IMHO) of the actual field herping community and less ambiguous.

Excepting the commercial collectors you mentioned, some (and maybe quite a few more than some) of whom I suspect see themselves as field herpers, I could agree that's a reasonable argument. I think it's a very bad idea to exclude by definition people who want to be included, though, just because some other people don't want to be associated with them.

BillMcGighan wrote:

Now, here, the poll seems valid in that I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that we're looking for a "connotative" meaning that separates the "spirit" of NAFHA herpers from the commercial and the purely scientific world...

But, see, reflecting the spirit of NAFHA herpers is not - and should not - be a primary consideration in coming up with a definition for a term that has heretofore pertained to a much larger portion of the herp hobby than just NAFHA. As someone (or more than someone) has said previously in these recent threads, if NAFHA members are so eager to exclude everyone who doesn't see things the same way that they do, then they should come up with their own term for themselves rather than trying to co-opt a term that belongs to all of us.

And there's no way that a poll as slanted as the one at the top of this thread can be considered valid to anyone who doesn't care for the proffered definition. It shouldn't even be considered valid by those who do like said definition, if one considers fairness important to validity.

I think it's a good idea to present some analogies, as many have already been doing. The relationship between field herping and herp hunting seems to be analogous to the relationship between birding and bird hunting. I think this parrallel is worth considering, so I searched around for commentary between birders and bird hunters for some sort of idea of what we might expect to encounter during this conversation. I thought this was somewhat interesting, and it shows a similar appeal to intent to what we've seen in this thread argued by people who support Andy's definition:

The primary differences between the two groups are a birder collects his/her quarry with a list or a camera, while a bird hunter bags the targeted species with a shotgun, and both thinks the other is a little bit crazy.

…sounds familiar.

I think the birder/bird hunter distinction discussion is a model of our similar argument. Fishing, on the other hand, seems like a confusing comparison. Just food for thought.

... The relationship between field herping and herp hunting seems to be analogous to the relationship between birding and bird hunting...

I don't agree at all, for historical or current reasons.

Historically, it appears that field herping was previously just herping (with "field" being added to distinguish it from herpetoculture, which some call/ed deli-cup herping), and before that herping was herp hunting (with herping simply appearing as a shortened form). In contrast, birding (apparently a shortened form of bird watching) doesn't historically stem from bird hunting; the two were always distinct from one another.

Currently (and historically) field herping, herping and herp hunting have always included a range of end points, from collecting/sampling to do-not-disturb observing. In contrast again, birding and bird watching have always had more or less one end point, and bird hunting has had quite a different one.

If you were defining "field herping" for Webster, would it not be a simple thing like, "The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians."

Can someone explain why this definition wouldn't suffice? Why do we need to tack on the options/choices one has once the animal has been located or declare the motive for searching?

AGREED It is what it says. 'field herping' can lead to all sort of outcomes which are not a defined by the intitial action.

When I lived in the midwest I used to hear people in northern states, where it is cold and shut down for numerous months on end say they were going to the reptile show. When asked if they were going to buy anything particular I would occasionally hear a response of.. 'No, just going "deli cup herping" to see what around" ....

... some want a motivation test included as a means of segregating out folks like subsistence hunters, round-up hunters, and exploitative commercial collectors. Is this a "compelling reason"? Maybe not, but I don't see any real harm since most of those being excluded don't consider themselves field herpers anyway. The motivation test I suggested was a little more inclusive (IMHO) of the actual field herping community and less ambiguous.

Excepting the commercial collectors you mentioned, some (and maybe quite a few more than some) of whom I suspect see themselves as field herpers, I could agree that's a reasonable argument.

Please note that the term I used was "exploitative commercial collectors". We may be splitting hairs here, but there are many types and extremes of commercial collectors. While I'm generally opposed to commercial collection (I say "generally" because I make many exceptions and recognize that they are mostly based on my personal biases), I don't think that "interest in conservation or preservation" excludes those commercial collectors that would consider themselves field herpers. Responsible commercial collectors will certainly have an interest in "conservation", even if for no other reason than ensuring future harvests. OTOH, "exploitative commercial collectors" would not have that concern and likely would not consider themselves field herpers (unless trying to trick a field herper into giving them info).

Quote:

I think it's a very bad idea to exclude by definition people who want to be included, though, just because some other people don't want to be associated with them.

I agree and have said as much previously. The other side of the coin, however, is that our desire to be maximally inclusive could potentially result in excluding folks on the other extreme. We need to find a balance and draw lines carefully. I tried to draw the line where it would most likely only exclude people who don't honestly consider themselves herpers anyway.

My revision is admittedly not perfect and I'd certainly prefer to leave off any motivation (K.I.S.S. as mentioned above). I simply offered the one I did because it seems to be very important to some. If any motivation is mentioned, it should be as inclusive as possible of all parties that now or in the past have considered themselves "field herpers".

Aaron,You are correct... I should have said "with the possible exceptions of commercial collection and harvesting (round-ups).

I think in those 2 cases the primary motivation is money, rather than the welfare of the given species, and 'sustained use' is a rationalization for their greed. An unused population will maintain optimal densities naturally, and is arguable in the best interests of the species. While if, as you suggest, sustainable herp use contributes to the allocation of habitat for recreational use, and there's adequate data to verify the sustainability of said use, then I could see the sense in that.But the paradigm I detailed places 'species welfare' 1st, and I doubt that commercial collectors and harvesters honestly list that as their No 1 motivation. I think it's the most ethical approach to herping, or else I would not be following it. I put it out there, for consideration, in the hope that some may agree, and possibly adopt those standards as their own.As far as what people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do... I will only say that they SHOULD consider very carefully what their personal standards are why they hold them, before they hit the field, so they don't end up doing things they later regret, for a lack of ethical preparation. jim

As for deleting 'observing'? You logically have to observe any herp before doing anything else (and which leads to everything else) but 'observing' also includes a growing group that observes only.

And 'hobby' should stay, for THIS definition is the one that we, largely hobbiest Field herpers are composing for ourselves. Words or terms can have multiple definitions.... some even having opposite meanings (Cleave, Weather, ect) this definition is supposed to be for us, on this forum, and so should reflect that. jim

As for deleting 'observing'? You logically have to observe any herp before doing anything else (and which leads to everything else) but 'observing' also includes a growing group that observes only.

The obvious connotation of "observing" is not JUST seeing, but actively watching and taking note (mentally or literally) of the details of what is observed. Also, precisely because field herping "also includes a growing group that observes only", listing that outcome without including others has the effect of excluding or diminishing the legitimacy of other outcomes.

Quote:

And 'hobby' should stay, for THIS definition is the one that we, largely hobbiest Field herpers are composing for ourselves.

EXCEPT some members of FHF are professionals. Do you REALLY want to exclude professional field biologists with a passionate interest in herps JUST because they're lucky enough to get paid to herp?

Quote:

Words or terms can have multiple definitions.... some even having opposite meanings (Cleave, Weather, ect) this definition is supposed to be for us, on this forum, and so should reflect that.

If you really want this definition to be "for us, on this forum" then perhaps we should just say "The pursuit of herps by members of FHF, especially if they're also active members of NAFHA".

As for deleting 'observing'? You logically have to observe any herp before doing anything else (and which leads to everything else) but 'observing' also includes a growing group that observes only.

The obvious connotation of "observing" is not JUST seeing, but actively watching and taking note (mentally or literally) of the details of what is observed. Also, precisely because it "also includes a growing group that observes only", including it without including other actions has the effect of excluding or diminishing the legitimacy of those actions.

Quote:

And 'hobby' should stay, for THIS definition is the one that we, largely hobbiest Field herpers are composing for ourselves. Words or terms can have multiple definitions.... some even having opposite meanings (Cleave, Weather, ect) this definition is supposed to be for us, on this forum, and so should reflect that.

EXCEPT some members of FHF are professionals. Do you REALLY want to exclude professional field biologists with a passionate interest in herps JUST because they're lucky enough to get paid to herp? If you REALLY want this definition to be "for us, on this forum" then perhaps we should just say "The pursuit of herps by members of FHF or NAFHA".

I think you've covered my point on hobby.

As far as observing... If I'm a cross country runner and I observe a rattlesnake on a trail, I'm not field herping. I need to search for it to be herping. While observation may be a result of the search, the act of observing doesn't make it field herping.

I stated before, and I still agree, that it is important to define what this thing we call Field Herping is. A lot of good points have been made.

I think part of the hang-ups are due to people trying to define “Field Herping” in the purist sense of the phrase, while others are trying to define it as it applies to “Field Herpers”. I agree with those that said “Field Herping” would essentially be “searching for wild amphibians and reptiles”. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, Webster’s Dictionary defines birding as “to observe or identify wild birds in their habitats”.

But the act of defining “Field Herping” also defines a “Field Herper” and maybe that is the angle we should be tackling this at.

So a couple of my thoughts on what people have posted:Daryl stated:

Quote:

1) "Act" instead of "hobby" because "act" is more inclusive.

I still believe this should be defined as a hobby, but I can also go with the word “act”.

Daryl supported this with:

Quote:

EXCEPT some members of FHF are professionals. Do you REALLY want to exclude professional field biologists with a passionate interest in herps JUST because they're lucky enough to get paid to herp?

I would say ultimately we are working a definition to define what we do if someone were to ask. If a subsistence hunter is focused on finding Green Iguanas for the table and you ask him what he is doing he will reply “searching for food”, and will likely not identify himself as a “Field Herper”. A professional (actually I get to do herp related things as work quite often) will likely identify himself as a “Herpetologist”, “Biologist” or some other similar term, but not a “Field Herper”. I don’t think they will feel excluded. Therefore, this starts to put “Field Herping” in the hobby category.

Now we get to why I think it is important to include the motivation part (per Gerry’s request). It is that motivation that separates a “Field Herper” from a professional, subsistence hunter, commercial collector (although this can be a gray area) or just snake killer. It is also this motivation that would allow someone to identify themselves as a “Field Herper” and their activity as “Field Herping”.

Again a thought on Daryl’s statement of:

Quote:

3) "Interest in conservation or preservation" instead of "desire to enjoy and appreciate them" because it is more inclusive of the real motivations of field herpers. It also excludes types of "enjoyment and appreciation" such as wanton killing or subsistence hunting that are not characteristic of field herpers.

I only wish I could say true, but a lot of people, especially young people getting into field herping, are interested in it because they enjoy and appreciate herps. The conservation and preservation part hopefully (not always) comes later. I know as a kid I went looking for herps because I thought they were cool and liked finding them. I have also worked in nature education long enough to know that is sometimes purely the animal that interests people and not much else.

So maybe it would be better to say a Field Herper is someone who observes (that word I just like there) and searches for wild amphibian and reptiles, motivated by a desire to enjoy and appreciate them.

Then the definition of “Field Herping” falls into place.

Andy

p.s. To Daryl. Not picking on you, just liked your argument against my definition of field herping the best.

p.s. To Daryl. Not picking on you, just liked your argument against my definition of field herping the best.

I'll take that as a complement! Anyway, I wasn't really arguing against your definition. Just offering an alternative that made better sense to me. Your comment about new herpers not necessarily being motivated by conservation or preservation has considerable validity. Maybe another description of the motivation (or none at all) needs to be offered. I'm coming up empty.

The community represented on the FHF forums is made up of a wide assortment of "herpers" from all over the world, with a wide variety of herp interests, motives, etc. I do not think we can or should really nail down a definition that is so tight that it excludes a sizable segment of the FHF community. If we do, we are going to run the risk of alienating a bunch of folks who are members/users of FHF. Is that what we really want to do?

I pretty much agree with the KISS approach to this and think that something like "Field herping is the act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians." That keeps things simple, says what it needs to say, is not elitist, and does not leave a bunch of people out.

Field Herping: "A purposeful foray with the intention of some sort of interaction with wild Reptiles and Amphibians, for a variety of reasons."

There... that now says nothing about anyone, or anything, at all. Not the bushman, not the hobbiest, not the researcher... all inclusive description of the overall actions and motivations which are extant.Why not go with multiple definitions, as Webster would.a) Relating to science, the collection of data and or samples for research purposes, typically as employment.b) relating to the hobby, the search for and collection of observations, data, pictures, and/or animals.c) relating to commercialism, the searching for and collecting of animals for breeding or resale opportunities.ECT.

Let me know when you guys figure out that this is closely related to the 'archetypes paradigm' I suggested at the onset, as the only workable avenue, towards establishing ethical standards. jim

"The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians, typically motivated by an affinity for herps."

Kinda makes my point... look at all the definitions for just one word:affinity[uh-fin-i-tee] Example Sentences Origin Like this word?Inheritance Advance LoansInheritance Cash Advances To Heirs Of Probate Estates. Apply Online!InheritanceFunding.com/InheritanceBiology Research Reagents2000+ Proteins,Antibody, Kits,cDNA, Bulks & Vials, Quality Guaranteedhttp://www.SinoBiological.comITT TechEducation for the Future. Over 130 Locations. Learn More!Adshttp://www.ITT-Tech.eduaf·fin·i·ty /əˈfɪnɪti/ Show Spelled [uh-fin-i-tee] Show IPA noun, plural -ties., adjectivenoun1.a natural liking for or attraction to a person, thing, idea, etc.2.a person, thing, idea, etc., for which such a natural liking or attraction is felt.3.relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood ( distinguished from consanguinity).4.inherent likeness or agreement; close resemblance or connection.5.Biology . the phylogenetic relationship between two organisms or groups of organisms resulting in a resemblance in general plan or structure, or in the essential structural parts.

Given all the types of herpers, we will never distill a definition down to one concise sentence...that everyone will accept. Better a comprehensive and perspicuous accounting, wherein everyone can pick the definition that suits their actions and beliefs.Anything else will ultimately (and sadly) most likely be an exercise in futility. jim

The community represented on the FHF forums is made up of a wide assortment of "herpers" from all over the world, with a wide variety of herp interests, motives, etc. I do not think we can or should really nail down a definition that is so tight that it excludes a sizable segment of the FHF community.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the discussion, but those of us trying to nail down a definition are not intending to alienate anyone on FHF, rather we are trying to come up with a definition that accurately encompasses the varied motivations, interests and practices of ALL FHF community members while excluding those who may search for herps but would not call themselves "herpers" (subsistence hunting, skin traders, rattlesnake roundups, redneck shootouts etc.)

@Andy - I think Daryl's "act" is better than hobby, It's more inclusive and still doesn't let in the aforementioned riff-raff

@Daryl - I think you are also more correct with "searching" rather than observing. Just because we get skunked doesn't mean we weren't herping.

The act of searching for wild reptiles and amphibians, typically motivated by an affinity for herps.

Daryl - why use "typically"? Can you describe a situation where someone would be field herping but they have no affinity for herps? If not, I think we can drop that word.

@jim - more thoughts on the word hobby. Just because a hobby is what many of us have made of field herping, I don't think it needs to be in the definition. I think we are defining an act, not a hobby. Defining the "act" of field herping, doesn't take anything away from the fact that this act is a hobby for many. I also think putting hobby in the definition excludes anyone who would occasionally field herp (like a birder occasionally looking for lizards) but would never define it as a hobby for themselves.

What it seems like to me is that some are trying to present a definition (which seems quite obvious) that bows to a specific orientation of the term.

Many have said it already... Field herping is defined as looking for herps in the field. Seems pretty simple to me... but then... I'm a simple minded kind of person.

Oh... 'typically' is a fitting word because I have friends(yes... a few) who know I'm into herps. They are not but they are nature oriented. When they come across a herp they note the account to me. I'm sure many of the members of the forum have friends or neighbors who do this. They are not herping but the take note by asociation.

Jeremiah_Easter wrote:

keown wrote:

Quote:

The community represented on the FHF forums is made up of a wide assortment of "herpers" from all over the world, with a wide variety of herp interests, motives, etc. I do not think we can or should really nail down a definition that is so tight that it excludes a sizable segment of the FHF community.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the discussion, but those of us trying to nail down a definition are not intending to alienate anyone on FHF, rather we are trying to come up with a definition that accurately encompasses the varied motivations, interests and practices of ALL FHF community members while excluding those who may search for herps but would not call themselves "herpers" (subsistence hunting, skin traders, rattlesnake roundups, redneck shootouts etc.)

@Andy - I think Daryl's "act" is better than hobby, It's more inclusive and still doesn't let in the aforementioned riff-raff

@Daryl - I think you are also more correct with "searching" rather than observing. Just because we get skunked doesn't mean we weren't herping.

I think it's a very bad idea to exclude by definition people who want to be included, though, just because some other people don't want to be associated with them.

I agree and have said as much previously. The other side of the coin, however, is that our desire to be maximally inclusive could potentially result in excluding folks on the other extreme...

No, Daryl, you don't have that quite right. The people you mentioned would be excluding themselves. Big difference. (From another time: "I ain't eatin' in no restaurant that serves them people!" "I understand, sir. I hope you find a restaurant more to your liking elsewhere.")

Daryl Eby wrote:

The obvious connotation of "observing" is not JUST seeing, but actively watching and taking note (mentally or literally) of the details of what is observed. Also, precisely because field herping "also includes a growing group that observes only", listing that outcome without including others has the effect of excluding or diminishing the legitimacy of other outcomes.

Absolutely. And I believe that most if not all of the people advocating that the word "observing" but not other field herping acts (such as collecting ) be including in the definition know that.

Andy Avram wrote:

Now we get to why I think it is important to include the motivation part (per Gerry’s request). It is that motivation that separates a “Field Herper” from a professional, subsistence hunter, commercial collector (although this can be a gray area) or just snake killer. It is also this motivation that would allow someone to identify themselves as a “Field Herper” and their activity as “Field Herping”.

I already expressed my concern over excluding commercial collectors, who might well see themselves as field herpers - and so far as I'm concerned would of course have every right to do so. The others I'm not so concerned about, as I agree that they likely would not self-identify as field herpers, but I do have at least some concern for people with motivations not yet mentioned. And in general, I believe the definition will be more useful if it strives to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Look at it this way: Lots of people who don't share our interest in herps are going to view all of us, the rattlesnake round-up guy as well as the guy who carefully tiptoes around the rattlesnake den so as not to disturb any of the snakes, as the same no matter what we say; why not include everyone who self-identifies as a field herper, even if we don't like some folks' practices, to give us an opening to teach them better ways?

And I wasn't clear, Andy, but what I meant by way of compelling reason was a clear potential benefit to our community and/or the herps and their habitats. For example, my argument above that by including rather than excluding folks we have a better chance of improving their behavior.

Jeremiah_Easter wrote:

... those of us trying to nail down a definition are not intending to alienate anyone on FHF, rather we are trying to come up with a definition that accurately encompasses the varied motivations, interests and practices of ALL FHF community members...

You can say it, but I'm not buying it. (Sounds like EJ sees what's been going on the same way that I do.) But I think the statement above is true of most of us, anyway.

So this thread is a sticky now? I strongly disagree. There's some good stuff here (as in most threads at this website), to be sure, but the poll that the thread starts with is too slanted to merit it receiving such status. It makes it look as if unfair treatment of a sizeable portion of our community is being promoted.

Daryl - why use "typically"? Can you describe a situation where someone would be field herping but they have no affinity for herps? If not, I think we can drop that word.

I'm glad EJ chimed in on that because I was stumped by your question. I actually threw it in just to be a bit more inclusive.

gbin wrote:

]No, Daryl, you don't have that quite right. The people you mentioned would be excluding themselves. Big difference.

Yes. There is a big difference. However, the end result is the same -some people are excluded. If possible, I'd rather avoid that. From your many posts on the issue, I know you'd also rather avoid it.

I'm trying to create an option other than a) endorsing the active exclusion of others, or b) passively watching others exclude themselves because we did not at least try to understand and accommodate their concerns. There is obviously no perfect middle ground, but hopefully we can establish a DMZ between the extremes.

I think it's a good idea to present some analogies, as many have already been doing. The relationship between field herping and herp hunting seems to be analogous to the relationship between birding and bird hunting. I think this parrallel is worth considering, so I searched around for commentary between birders and bird hunters for some sort of idea of what we might expect to encounter during this conversation. I thought this was somewhat interesting, and it shows a similar appeal to intent to what we've seen in this thread argued by people who support Andy's definition:

The primary differences between the two groups are a birder collects his/her quarry with a list or a camera, while a bird hunter bags the targeted species with a shotgun, and both thinks the other is a little bit crazy.

…sounds familiar.

I think the birder/bird hunter distinction discussion is a model of our similar argument. Fishing, on the other hand, seems like a confusing comparison. Just food for thought.

Hey... I voted for Andy's definition, Daryl's is fine by me as well, and I'm even fine with Gary's eloquent and accessible treatment. Leave out 'hobby' and 'observe'... fine by me. This is JUST the first (and arguably the simplest) of many steps to be taken, for this task we've taken upon ourselves. As for 'anal retentive'... that's actually what philosophy is... a bunch of nit-picking over semantics and the ramifications of every possibly imaginable scenario .... I do notice that no one has been able/willing to rebuke the 'archetype' paradigm.... just generally ignoring it, as 'too much work' (?) and (probably) hoping it (or I) will just go away. Neither is likely to happen, although I may take a brief 'sabbatical' to consult with my ethics mentor.My point right now, is to once again propose that there is a most effica.... productive means of addressing this herping ethics endeavor....1) define the perspective/ethical purview. 2) define the terms3) define the types of herpers4) suggest ethical standards for each activity.5) and so on, and forth.Doing this will save us a tremendous amount of time, stress, and limit miscommunication and repetition.

These discussions are in fact, very similar to the month-long 100's of pages some of us went through, in the Nafha Bylaws rewrite this Jan. We also were all over the map, discussing whatever happened to come up next, until I rearranged the Articles in a more logically-progressing fashion, and we discussed them in that order, after which things progressed more smoothly.Not bragging... matter of public record that anyone can verify... look it up. I don't have the time to commit to doing that here... but someone should... we have plenty of people here who could synthesize a logical 'plan of attack' for these discussions. Until such time, I will retreat to my own efforts on a germane topic, where I know logic will hold sway... jim

Daryl said: I'm trying to create an option other than a) endorsing the active exclusion of others, or b) passively watching others exclude themselves because we did not at least try to understand and accommodate their concerns. There is obviously no perfect middle ground, but hopefully we can establish a DMZ between the extremes.That is precisely the Virtue theory purview... means between the extremes (which I endorsed) I nominate Daryl to lead these discussions... jim

No, Daryl, you don't have that quite right. The people you mentioned would be excluding themselves. Big difference.

Yes. There is a big difference. However, the end result is the same -some people are excluded. If possible, I'd rather avoid that. From your many posts on the issue, I know you'd also rather avoid it.

Again, not quite right. You're correct that I do make a big deal about trying to unite rather than divide our community. But not just because I like big, warm, fuzzy group hugs. (Though I do, depending on the group in question. ) The point behind uniting our community is to increase our cooperative strength for tackling real world issues. People who would depart our not-so-little corner of the community (this website) because we refused to indulge their desire to exclude others, however, have pretty amply demonstrated that they're not interested in/capable of cooperation. I say let them walk if that's what they choose to do.